Don't we all love a mystery?

A few historical developments

Oct 28, 2022

Quote of the week

“History is a jangle of accidents, blunders, surprises and absurdities, and so is our knowledge of it, but if we are to report it at all we must impose some order upon it.”
Henry Steele Commager, American historian (1902-1998)

Hello,

Hope you are all well and enjoying the season wherever you are. Here in northern Europe autumn is upon us. Luckily, so far, it has been rather pleasant, with sunny and rather warm temperatures for the season. As we are heading into November, we have to keep our fingers cross.

A couple of historical developments happened this last week, so I leave the Danish royalty for now (I will come back to the prisoner) and take a look at new interesting events. The first one is a mystery alluding us for more than 500 years, namely:

The Princes in the Tower

It is impossible to go into all the details of this historical drama here. I leave a few links below for further reading, or take a look at google. Just a few facts we need to know due to digest new theories and a development of the story.

War of the Roses

A conflict and fight for the throne (1455-1487) between the two rival branches of the House of Plantagenet : Lancaster and York. The wars extinguished the male line of the dynasties leading to the Tudor family inheriting the Lancastrian claim. With Henry VII’s marriage to Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, the two lines were united.

The Princes in the Tower refers to the two eldest sons of Edward IV; Edward, the future Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. Edward IV died in 1483 when the princes were 12 and 9 years old. They were housed in the Tower by their uncle Duke of Gloucester.
The coronation of Edward V was postponed, the princes were declared illegitimate and Gloucester ascended the throne as Richard III. It is unclear what happened but they disappeared from view. Their deaths may have occurred sometime in 1483, but there are no real evidence.
Possible suspects: Richard III in order to secure his hold on the throne; Duke of Buckingham, the princes maternal uncle; or his future brother-in-law King Henry VII. It has been suggested that one, or both princes may have escaped death.
In 1674, workmen at the tower dug up a wooden box containing two small human skeletons. It was widely accepted at the time they belonged to the princes, but nothing has been proven. King Charles II had the bones buried in Westminster Abbey without any examination.
In 1789 workmen accidentally rediscovered two coffins in the vault of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville. They were said to contain two of there other children who died young. However, two other coffins with their names on them were found elsewhere in the vault.
In 1933 the bones found in the Tower were examined by leading experts. They concluded the bones belonged to two children around the same age as the princes. The bones were found together with animal bones and garbage. One skeleton was larger than the other, but some parts of the skeletons were missing. The examination has been criticised since the experts took for granted the bones belonged to the princes, and only looked for evidence of suffocation. There was not attempt to determine the sex of the bones. A DNA analysis has not been done. As Pollard (see link below) point out, even if a test would prove it is the princes, it would not prove who or what killed them.
In the late 1990s a request was put forward to re-excavating the skeletons of the two unidentified coffins. Queen Elizabeth II never granted the approval. Now it seems that King Charles III has given his approval to examine the skeletons found in the Tower and Westminster Abbey. Experts believe modern technology could give the answers, and shed light on how the princes died. IF the skeletons belongs to the princes. But, as Pollard said, it does not give us the culprit.

Other theories?

In ‘History Hit’ on Youtube historian Matthew Lewis puts forward his own theories on what happened to the princes and who was guilty … or not.

Prime suspect is Richard III. He had the motive, means and opportunity. Lewis argues that why did Richard not let the world know they were dead? That would have ended the prince’s claim to the throne and everybody would know they were not a threat to Richard.
Henry VII upon taking power in 1485 destroyed official document against usual protocol. Maybe these documents had something to do with the fate of the princes?
As usual in cases like this there are a few persons coming forward claiming to be one of the princes. Although some of the cases are more serious than others, there were no successful claimants.
When Henry VII married Elizabeth of York (daughter of Edward IV) he re-legalised the princes. Why would he do that if they were alive, and thus being a threat to his own claim to the throne?
Elizabeth Woodville comes out of sanctuary at Westminster Abbey in april 1484 and gives the custody of her daughters to Richard III. Would she do this if she thought that he had killed her sones?
Elizabeth of York, at the time Queen, did not at any time accuse her uncle of having killed her brothers. Not even Henry VII talked openly about them or their fate.
Before the Tudors, Richard III’s reputation was rather good. After the Tudors, and the writings of Sir Thomas More, his reputation deteriorated, and has not really recovered until recent years. Sir Thomas More leads us to:

The Jack Leslau Theory

Jack Leslau was an amateur art enthusiast who though he found an answer to the riddle of the Princes in the Tower hidden in Hans Holbein’s portrait of Sir Thomas More’s family.

The figure to the right, by the pillar, is marked as ‘Johanes heresius Thomae Mori famul: Anno 27‘. It has been believed it represents More’s secretary John Harris. Leslau discovered several anomalies, making him believe the young man is someone totally different. He believed it to be Dr John Clement, the husband of Margaret Giggs, Sir Thomas More’s adopted daughter. And, more controversially, that Dr John Clement was really Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, the younger of the Princes in the Tower.

His reason for this is that when examining Holbein’s preparatory sketch, made around 1527, with the final portrait of 1532, he found 1 major and 80 minor changes, each of them relevant to the ‘hidden secret’ he believed he found. The major change is the addition of the young man by the pillar. He was looking at the text above the man, reading ‘Johanes heresius Thomae Mori famul: Anno 27“. It can mean several things, but if it is translated from Latin, heresius can be translated as “here’s - heir, ius - right or rightful, that is; John, the rightful heir. There are a lot of further details for this painting. If interested go to Matthew Lewis blog.

Outcome?

Does it sound like a conspiracy theory? Well, a lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing that gives us a certain scenario of what happened to the Princes in the Tower. It is all very interesting, but personally, I think they died in the end of the 15th century. They might not have been murdered, but could have died by natural causes. The reasons for keeping it all secret are many. There are certainly many suspects, even if Richard III was always considered the prime one. If they had survived, I think we would have heard of them, in one way or the other. Apart from the ones who did come out in the open, but failed to provide proof of their claims. It will be interesting to follow the outcome of modern day forensics and to find out whether the bones found belong to the princes.

Links to more reading

Richard III and the Princes in the Tower by A.J. Pollard

Eleanor, the Secret Queen by John Ashdown-Hill

History Hit (Youtube) The Princes in the Tower

Matthew Lewis Blog Examining Hans Holbein’s painting

Äpplet (The Apple)

No, I am not talking about the famous computer company, nor about the fruit, I am talking about a 500 year old ship wreck discovered at the inlet of Stockholm. It is the sister ship of the famous, or infamous Vasa royal ship. The pride of Gustavus Adolphus’ navy, it sank on its maiden voyage on 10 August 1628 after roughly 1,300 m (1,400 yd). It fell into obscurity until it was located in the late 1950s in Stockholm harbour. It was salvaged, almost intact in 1961. After a temporary home it is now housed in the Vasa Museum in Stockholm. It is very popular and has been seen by over 35 million visitors since 1961. If you happen to be in Stockholm you really must see it. It is magnificent.

Now, marine archaeologist from Vrak (Museum of Wrecks) have found the sister ship Äpplet (The Apple). I think it is quite an unusual and funny name for a ship. It is similar to Vasa and was launched a year later. Built by the same builder but slightly adjusted to be one metre wider to increase stability. According to the Museum of Wreck, it was probably not due to the unlucky fate of Vasa, since the building of the ship was far ahead at the time of the accident, but the constructor realised already earlier that the construction of the ships were unstable. In spite of the changes it was difficult to manoeuvre The Apple.

The Apple was one of four warships with double canon tires that was to establish the dominion of Sweden over the Baltic Sea. The other were Kronan (The Crown) and Scepter (The Scepter). The Apple never participated in a sea battle, but served the state during the thirty years’ war as a transport ship, and not least as the sign of power and status.

After 30 years of service Sweden tried to sell The Apple to, among others, France. They turned down the offer due to the lack of performance as well as the fact it was worn out. Instead it was emptied on canons and other valuable things and sunk outside Vaxholm fortress. The marin archaeologists are hoping to continue diving in order to document the wreck. For the time being there is no intention to salvage the wreck.

The find can bring new historical facts to the development of Swedish ship building. It gives the possibility to see the difference between the Vasa and The Apple. It is also important to understand how the big war ships develops from the unstable Vasa to the more sea worthy ships that conquered the Baltic Sea. It was a decisive factor for Sweden’s emergence as a major power in the 17th century.

This week

After another long story on a historical mystery, I will make it short. This week I went to one guided tour and two theatres. The guided tour was to the City Hall of Malmö, built in the 16th century by the Danes, ruling this part of Sweden at the time. It was very interesting and a beautiful building.

Two theatres of which one was from the amateur theatre in Malmö. They gave a Harold Pinter play, The Dumb Waiter. As usual with Pinter you have to be on your toes to gather the fine tuned elements of the play. Quite a surprise ending, as usual I would say. This amateur group is very good, I have seen several performances by them.

The other one was Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II. It was absolute great and quite funny. Retelling the rather sad story of this king and his friends and lovers. It was excellently performed in a small theatre where you really are sitting on the scene. This is my first Marlowe play and I really enjoyed it.

On Tuesday there was a meeting with my writing group. As usual great fun and a lot of inspiration.

See you next week.

The Content Reader - Newsletter

Discussion about this post